These petitions are filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.

praying to set aside the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the I

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl. Mis.

Nos.503/2020, 553/2020, 493/2020, 252/2020 granting bail to

the respondents herein respectively in Cr.No.138/2020 of

Keragodu police station for the offence punishable under

Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the petitioners-State and the learned counsel

appearing for the respondentsin all the matters.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the

respondentshave been arraigned as accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7

and 8 in the aforesaid cases for the offences punishable under

Section 302 and 201 of IPC. An allegation against these

respondents is that the respondents along with the other

accused persons committed murder of one Byra who was also an

accused in Cr.No.139/2020 wherein an allegation is made

against him that in the absence of parents of minor victim girl,

subjected her for sexual harassment and the same came to

6

know when the victim girl was crying while urinating and hence,

they were having ill-will against the deceased and all of them

conspired each other and committed murder of the said Byra.

The respondents herein have approached the Trial Court in the

aforesaid respective Crl. Misc. Cases and the Trial Court during

the crime stage allowed the bail petition coming to the

conclusion that there was no previous enmity between the

deceased, there was mob, there must be sudden provocation

because of the deceased said to have sexually assaulted 7 year

old girl and taking into consideration of these respondents are in

JC for more than one month, custodial interrogation of these

respondents may not be required and hence, granted bail to

them.

4.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the

present petitions are filed by the State contending that the Trial

Court has committed an error in entertaining the bail petitions

during the crime stage ignoring the seriousness of the offences

alleged against them. The learned Judge has committed an

error in granting bail to the respondents herein when there is an

overt act allegation of committing murder against them. The

7

counsel for the State would submit that the blood stain cloth of

the accused Nos.2 and 5 were seized and the same was sent to

the FSL and even without considering the FSL report, the learned

Judge has proceeded to pass an order only coming to the

conclusion that they were in custody for more than one month

and not assigned any valid reason and the reason assigned also

capricious in nature and it requires interference of this Court. He

further submits that FSL report is received and charge sheet is

also filed and the mother of the deceased also supported the

case of the prosecution since she has witnessed all these

persons taking the deceased.

5.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

would submit that the case is rest upon the circumstantial

evidence and there are no eye-witness to the incident and apart

from that it was a mob incident as alleged by the prosecution.

The trial Judge in paragraph 17 has assigned the reason while

enlarging the petitioners on bail and hence, prayed to allow the

petitions.

8

6.

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the documents on record, it is appropriate to extract

the paragraph 17 of the order of the trial Judge which reads as

follows:

<17. I have gone through the judgments relied

upon by learned PP and also I have gone through the

facts of the present case and the petition averments.

In the present case, as rightly argued by the learned

counsel for petitioners (in Crl. Misc. No.493 and 503

of 2020), there was no previous enmity against the

deceased, there was mob, there must be sudden

provocation because of the deceased said to have

sexually assaulted 7 year old child, taking into

consideration of these petitioners are in JC for mo